Case Brief/Kelo V. City of New London

The city of New London, CT hired an independent agency to revitalized one of its waterfront properties. This revitalization was intended to create jobs and generate tax revenue for the city. To accomplish this, the independent agency was given authority to acquire the properties by buying them or eminent domain. The independent agency acquired majority of the properties, but some property owners refused to sell. The lower court affirmed both sides, but the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, CT; claiming that it was in line with the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court stating that the city’s actions were justified and there is no way to undermine their decision on what was considered “public use.”

Legal Issue:

Whether the city of New London, CT has the right to consider private property that is not blighted for economical purposes under “public use?”

Legal Holding:

In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court declared that economical benefits resulting from redevelopment is considered as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.

Judges:

Majority Judges “Opinion of the Court” Stevens, Author of Opinion The city of New London, CT revitalization plan met the requirements as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.

“Concurring” Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Kennedy, Author of Opinion The court must decide that the government’s action are just and their intentions are to have a public purpose. Total of Number of Majority Judges (five)

Similar Documents

...Case Brief
GM520, Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions of Business
Style of Case and Citations
Kelo v. City of New London
545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Court Rendering Final Decision
U.S. Supreme Court
Identification of Parties and Procedural Details
Susette Kelo and the other affected property owners (Plaintiff) filled a suit challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes in order to make room for Pfizer and the economic development plan.
Discussion of the Facts
The City of New London came up with a plan to redevelop an area in which they would develop a state park and other architecturally eclectic homes. Part of the deal included Pfizer corporation who would also put a research facility in the area. The development would match what Pfizer corporation was planning and would also increase revenue, create jobs, and promote the waterfront area. This would then be the start of a much needed revitalization of the rest of the city. The New London Development Corporation and other nonprofit corporations planned to bring in Pfizer with hopes of an economic boost.
Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute
Kelo and other residents are challenging the New London's legal authority in taking their homes. They are questioning if the property meets the requirements as public use within the means of the Taking Clause and the Fifth Amendment. New London's plan is to develop a 90-acre area on the waterfront near the Fort...

...Case Brief Summary: Marbury v. Madison
Robert L. Broadwater
PAD 525
Strayer University
Dr. O’Neal
July 09, 2012
Summary of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
Facts
The incumbent president Federalist John Adams was defeat in the presidential election by Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. The day before leaving office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. This was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.
William Marbury (Plaintiff) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (Defendant), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” Ironically, John Marshall later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court......

...I. Style of the case: Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 2969, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1989).
II. Statement of Facts: Kevin Stanford committed the murder of Barbel Poore in Jefferson County, Kentucky on January 7, 1981, when he was approximately 17 years and 4 months of age. Stanford and his accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized Poore during and after their commission of a robbery at a gas station, where Stanford shot her pointblank in the face and then the back of her head. A Kentucky juvenile court conducted hearings to determine whether he should be transferred for trial as an adult under Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. § 208.170. That statute provided that juvenile court jurisdiction could be waived and an offender tried as an adult if he was either charged with a Class A felony or capital crime, or was over 16 years of age and charged with a felony. The juvenile court found certification for trial as an adult to be in the best interest of petitioner and the community. Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death.
III. Procedural History: This case was first tried in a Kentucky juvenile court and Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence.
IV. Issues in the case: These two consolidated cases require us to decide whether the......

...Palsgraf v. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief
By: Jeffrey Boswell, Steven Casillas, Antwan Deligar & Randy Durham
BMGT 380
Professor Eden Allyn
26 May 13
Facts
The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, filed a suit against the Long Island Rail Road Company. The plaintiff claimed the Long Island Railroad Company’s negligence resulted in injury to her person. A passenger was attempting to board a moving train and lost his footing. The man looked as though he was going to fall. A guard reached out to help the man onto the train and another guard attempted to push him onto the train from behind. The man was carrying a box that was covered by a newspaper. As the guard reached to catch the man, the box was dislodged and fell on the tracks. Once the box hit the tracks it exploded and caused a chain reaction. On the other side of the platform the explosion caused scales to fall on the plaintiff.
Issue
The court must decide if the plaintiff’s rights were violated. Since she filled a suit of negligence against the Long Island Railroad Company she must prove four things. She must prove that the defendant owed her a duty of care. Second, she must prove that the defendants breached that duty. Third, the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that she suffered a legally recognizable injury (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2012, p. 136).
Ruling
The appeals court reversed the...

...Case Brief
Orlando v. Cole (2010)
FACTS
Joseph M. Orlando filed a complaint for slander against fellow attorney, Garrick F. Cole. Allegedly, Orlando suffered harm to his reputation as a lawyer when Cole made false comments about his role in an investigation involving a 17-year-old student and a high school basketball coach, Thomas A. Atwater. At the time, Atwater was unrepresented and approached Orlando to admit that he had in fact sexually assaulted the high school student. He signed an affidavit and confessed to the police, while Orlando spoke to the media and gave them a copy of Atwater’s affidavit. Cole, who was now representing Atwater, told the same reporters that the affidavit was “inaccurate” and Orlando’s actions were “fraudulent” and “deceitful”.
ISSUE
Are the comments made by Cole reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation? Are Cole’s statements ones of fact, opinion, or a combination of both?
RULE
“A statement is defamatory in the circumstances if it discredits a person in the minds of any considerable and respectable class of the community.”
“The determination whether a statement is one of fact or opinion is generally considered a question of law” because “under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea”.
APPLICATION
In this case, the court concluded that the comments made by Cole are susceptible of a defamatory connotation because the terms used include “inaccurate”, “fraudulent”, and “deceitful”- which all......

...Case Brief
Citation: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962)
Procedural History
This case is on appeal from an affirmed decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. It was currently on remand only for the purpose of punishment.
Issue
Does withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant violate that defendant’s due process rights? Under the circumstances of this case, did limitations on new proceedings as to punishment only violate defendant’s due process rights?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, in general, withholding evidence favorable to the defendant as to either guilt or punishment violates a defendant’s due process rights irrespective of the intentions of prosecutors. But for the purposes of this case, no, the defendant’s due process rights were not violated when his new trial was restricted to punishment only, as the evidence in question only pertained to his relative culpability and appropriate punishment, not his underlying guilt.
Facts
Brady (Petitioner) and accomplice, Boblit, were both convicted in a Maryland Court of the same murder (in the first degree) but in separate trials. At trial, Brady admitted his assistance in the planning and commission of the crime, but denied having personally committed the killing. Defense counsel admitted his client’s guilt at trial, explaining to the jury that they should find him guilty but not impose the death penalty due to his lesser culpability. Brady’s attorney, prior to trial, requested access to all of the......

...Eminent domain is described as the power of the government to take private property for public use. The “Taking’s Clause” is described in the United States Constitution as “..Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the city of New London did not violate the Taking’s Clause. It is stated in the case that the city purchased the property of 15 of the 24 owners. They were taking the property to build a research facility, a hotel and also stores and private residences. These are all for public use. Of course I can see how the homeowners would think that it was more for private use, the city of New London would be making profits from the sale of residential property and also from the building of the businesses. However they are for public use. Since the government had to take the landowners to court the government had to file suit to seek “condemnation” of the land. This is just stating that they are offering a just price for the land and awarding the title to the government.
This was the case a few years back in the county I live in. I live in Crawford County, Ohio and the State of Ohio was working to rebuild a public highway. While they were offering large amounts of money to the land owners, a few of them tried to stand strong and not sell. Unfortunately they were forced to sell and then received less than the other landowners. I understand why they didn’t want to...

...Title: Helling v. Carey 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)
Procedure: The plaintiff Helling, a patient, appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeals (state of Washington) affirming the judgment of the trial court for defendant ophthalmologists in a medical malpractice action involving the ophthalmologists' failure to timely administer a glaucoma test. This case was heard in the Supreme Court in Washington state.
Issue or issues: The issue was whether the ophthalmologists' compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology, that did not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age, insulated them from liability.
Facts: The patient, who was 32 years of age when she was diagnosed with glaucoma, sued the ophthalmologists, alleging that she suffered severe and permanent damage to her eyes as the proximate result of the ophthalmologists' negligence in failing timely administer a pressure test for glaucoma. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the ophthalmologists.
Holding: The Washington Supreme Court held, as a matter of law, that the reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple, harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that, in failing to do so, the defendants were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable.
Analysis: After years of......

...Levi Strauss & Co. V. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 633 F.3d 1158 (2011)
FACTS: Levi Strauss has stitched a design on the back pockets of its jeans since 1873. Levi Strauss holds multiple federally registered trademarks on this bow-shaped design, an “Arcuate”. They are required to actively monitor competing designs and enforce its trademark rights. In 2005, Abercrombie & Fitch attempted to register a “mirror” image stitching design for use on certain products. Levi Strauss argued that this design should be barred because it could potentially cause confusion with and dilute the Levi Strauss Arcuate mark. While the ninth circuit appeal was pending, Abercrombie announced the shutdown of the Ruehl brand and the Ruehl retail stores. Abercrombie then proceeded to file a new trademark-registration application with the PTO. This time they were attempting to register the same mirror image with a different brand name, Gilley Hicks. These would be sold at different prices, and through different channels than their former Ruehl line. After this, Levi Strauss attempted to have Abercrombie agree to amend the pleadings to add Gilley Hicks, or say that any injunction occurred would extend to include the Gilley Hicks line as well; Abercrombie refused.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: On July 20, 2007, Levi Strauss sued Abercrombie in the Northern District of California after learning that Abercrombie was selling products with this mirror image on a line of jeans- the “Ruehl”. The district court held......

...Legal Analysis and Writing
Unit #5 Case Briefs of
Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Dept.
Apodaca v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Dept.
Name of Student
Date
University Name
Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d. 1316 (N.M.1988)
FACTS: Billie J Rodman was terminated from her employment with Presbyterian Hospital as a Unit Secretary on February 17, 1987. Ms. Rodman was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman has been placed on notice and given restrictions on her conduct following issues with her personal problems adversely impacting her place of work. These issues included excessive personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors to her workstation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: New Mexico Employment Security Department denied Ms. Rodman’s request for unemployment benefits based on her misconduct connected with work under §51-1-7(B). Ms. Rodman appealed to The Appeals Tribunal of the Department of Employment Security. The Tribunal found based on evidence that Ms. Rodman had willing disregarded her employees request to improve her conduct at work despite her contentions that she could not stop a third party from their actions. The hearing officer deemed Ms. Rodman’s actions as unreasonable and constituted misconduct.
ISSUE: Did Ms. Rodman’s misconduct on February 17, 1987 which lead to her termination rise to the level of misconduct which would warrant......

...Suffrage Case Brief: Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Issue:
Are women citizen under the Constitution? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, does citizen has privilege and immunities clause to vote? Or, is the Fourteenth Amendment only confined the right of suffrage to men?
Reasoning:
As the result of discussion, women are the citizen since they are born and naturalized in the United States. The Supreme Court explains that the state and federal law have treated women as citizens since the beginning.
Next, the court claims that women have no right to vote. Because in the Constitution, none of the Amendment had written down who should have the right of suffrage. The court explains that the power of giving citizens right to vote is belong to the States not the court. The court would change the law only if the law is determined wrong.
Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment is not only confined the right of suffrage to men alone. And the court explains that the men did not have any an advantage over the women. Every law is exactly applied to both of them.
Facts:
In the United States, all citizens can have their right to vote and no one, neither government, can deny their rights of being citizen. During the 1870s, women still did not have their right of suffrage. The women are the citizens of the United States since their birth, and the federal laws have treated them as citizens. Men have no advantage over women, neither the law. Therefore, women should have all the privileges and......

...I. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
III. FACTS:
The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy.
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic...

...Kelo vs City of New London
The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due......

...BUSINESS LAW: CASE ANALYSIS 1
On October 15, 2003, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the M/V Andrew J. Barberi, en route from Manhattan to Staten Island went off its course and collided at full speed into a concrete maintenance pier just 1800 feet south of the slip at which it was intended to dock.
That day the vessel, with a 6000 passenger capacity, was carrying nearly 1500 people. It traveled on a day that was clear but windy, one deemed acceptable for travel. Traveling at a typical speed of 14-16 knots the ferry had the ability to come to a full stop in 43 seconds in a space of 420 feet.
On this day the ferry was commanded by Captain Michael Gansas who in turn assigned Assistant Captain Richard Smith to the helm. Both men met the requirements of the coast Guard regulations as certified as first-class pilots and both were licensed. Both men had consistently received positive performance reviews over more than ten years of experience with the Staten Island Ferry.
Smith steered the ferry, accompanied by deckhand, Joseph Selch, who was assigned as a lookout, while Ganas, leaving Smith alone at the helm without reservation, was near the rear of the vessel making preparations for a future Coast Guard inspection. Selch and Smith carried on normal conversations throughout the trip.
With just 3000 feet, to be traveled in two minutes, left to the journey, Selch was released from his lookout duties to go and prepare for docking. Smith was left alone in the......